Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) This application is filed by applicant Ajai Kumar Day with a prayer that the order dated 30.6.2003 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in case No. 269 of 2001, whereby a maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- each per month has been awarded to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 from the date of application dated 4.5.2001, may be quashed.
(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. The notice was issued to the applicant. The applicant appeared before the court concerned and filed a written statement denying the marriage, but due to non appearance of the applicant on some dates, an ex-parte order dated 30.6.2003 has been passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.
(3.) It is further contented that the opposite party No. 2 is not the wife and opposite party No. 3 is not the son of the applicant. As per application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the opposite party No. 2 on 13.5.2000, at the time of marriage the opposite party No. 2 was pregnant, from the wedlock of the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 a male child, opposite party No. 3 was born on 14.6.2000. The applicant has developed physical and sexual relations with the opposite party No. 2 prior to their marriage. It is alleged that the applicant has developed physical relations with the opposite party No. 2 forcefully when she was alone at her house, and a threat was also extended by the applicant after committing the sexual intercourse with the opposite party No. 2 for not disclosing this fact to any person. From the allegation made in the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. it is not established that the applicant has performed the marriage with the opposite party No. 2 and it is and admitted case that at the time of the alleged marriage the opposite party No. 2 was pregnant, therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no 3 was the son of the applicant. The applicant has taken a plea of denial of his marriage, but without affording the proper opportunity to the applicant the Family Court has passed the ex-parte order dated 30.6.2003.;